young lunar explorers conference - lpi.usra.edu

Phillip M. CunioArthur N. Guest

Young Lunar Explorers ConferenceFlorida Institute of Technology

October 27, 2008

Outline

Who we areWays to get involved

RASC-ALMDRS

A few words on…Working hardReaching outInspiration

Who are we?Graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Studying Space Systems and Space System ArchitectureFocus on program and mission analysis for human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars

Phillip CunioFrom Titusville, Florida, USAUndergraduate in Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering @ University of FloridaMasters in Aeronautics and Astronautics @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Arthur GuestFrom Vancouver, BC, CanadaUndergraduate in Mechanical Engineering @ University of British ColumbiaMasters of Science in Space Studies @ International Space University

How to get involvedParticipate in contests

GLXP○ We hardly need to discuss this

moreRevolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts – Academic Linkage ○ RASC-AL○ More in a bitPacific International Space Center for Exploration Systems (PISCES)○ http://pisces.uhh.hawaii.edu○ Building a center of excellence

for analogue tests for human lunar missions

Moontasks○ http://moontasks.larc.nasa.gov/○ Design a tool to help astronauts

explore the MoonSign up for email news updates from NASA HQ to be apprised of new contests

Take a trip to an analog siteMars Desert Research Station (MDRS)○ More in a bitFlashline Mars Analog Research Station○ Operated by the Mars Society○ Located on Devon Island,

CanadaHaughton Mars Project (HMP)○ www.marsonearth.com○ Located on Devon Island,

CanadaJoin a society or group

SEDSMars SocietyMars Gravity BiosatelliteYoung Lunar ExplorersAnd many more

Living on the lunar surface – A Minimalist Approach

What is RASC-AL?Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts - Academic Linkage

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/rascal/A design program targeted at university-level engineering students developed by the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) and sponsored by NASA

Commences in September each year with the announcement of programmatic themes and culminates with the design project competition at the annual forum in June

Student teams, guided by a faculty advisor, work for one or two semesters designing solutions to real NASA engineering challenges.Teams are required to address the issues that a working NASA engineer would encounter, including Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and realistic assessment of project cost and scheduleAdditionally, teams are required to do education and public outreach (EPO)during the processThe top abstracts submitted are invited to travel to the annual RASC-AL Forum and present their work. Participating teams are asked to submit a written report, prepare a poster, and give an oral presentation. These elements, including a team’s EPO efforts, contribute to the scoring used to determine the winner of the RASC-AL Forum

NASA’s Planned Lunar OutpostUses crewed and cargo Altair Landers to deliver modules

HabitatLaboratoryPressurized Logistics Modules

Modules are offloaded, transported, & assembled in-situ

Maneuvering large elements over lunar surface is on critical pathATHLETE Mobility System is key

Hyb

rid a

rchi

tect

ure

as p

rese

nted

at 3

rdE

xplo

ratio

n C

onfe

renc

e

The Non-Connected ArchitectureKey Concept

Instead of connecting the major elements, the crew and cargo transit between each elementElements remain on the Altair descent stage

Revolutionary ImpactSimplifies campaign by eliminating need for assembly infrastructure○ Reduces program cost○ Reduces program risk○ Reduces operational risk

Distances between landers larger than shown

Operational ConceptTwo key components

Pressurized Tunnels○ Used to access to pressurized

elements from the lunar surface○ Allows SPR to dock to

pressurized elements on the lunar surface

Crew uses SPRs to transit between modules○ Allows for a “shirt-sleeve

transit”

Habitat

LaboratoryPLM

Logistical Resupply Transits

Habitat / Laboratory

Transit

Note:All major elements are

1-2 km apart.

Source: NASA. Space 2007 Conference

Architecture Mass Comparison

Component(s) / element(s)

Connected architecture

Non-connected architecture

ATHLETE 2 x 1500 kg 0 kg

Structural components of ICP 7 x 500 kg 0 kg

Additional airlock 0 kg 945 kg

Berthing adapters 8 x 250 kg 0 kg

Tunnels with berthing adapters 0 kg 7 x 400 kg

Total mass [kg] 8500 kg 3745 kg

The following changes occur when going from the connected to non-connected architecture:Eliminate requirement for ATHLETE mobility systemEliminate structural components of Integrated Consumable PlatformsAddition of tunnels for each pressurized elementFindings:

Non-connected architecture results in a mass savings of approximately 5 mtSavings spread over two cargo flights○ Flight 4 & 8 in NASA campaign

To offset time lost, extra consumables could be delivered to the lunar surface– Approximately 1.5 mt of logistics would be required.– Net mass savings is still over 3 mt (~150 surface days)

Analog SitesAnalog sites

A site on Earth that shares important geological or other characteristics with the surface of the Moon or Mars

Apollo training sitesIcelandHawaiiMeteor Crater, Arizona

Sites with habitatsMDRS (currently accepting applications)Devon Island (FMARS and HMP)Aquarius Lab

Work to do on-siteMany groups try to make as much use as possible of such facilitiesIndependent research projects are encouraged○ Human factors○ Biological sampling○ Extravehicular operations

What do Analog Sites Look Like?

Mars Desert Research Station

Simulates living and working on Mars

Located in the Utah desert5 hrs south of Salt Lake City

Examples of Work Done at MDRSLogistics project research

Tested Smart Small Logistics Container – tracks and updates logistics situation on siteThanks to the MIT Space Logistics Project (spacelogistics.mit.edu)

Attempted new solution to simsuit helmet issue: silica gel packetsResults inconclusive – some effect noticedStill shows potential as cheap solution

Educational outreachConnections made via Skype to schools around North America for live “lectures from Mars”Educational outreach blog maintained; questions answered

“Untitled Mars” projectConducted interviews, wrote transcripts, gathered material

Crew living conditions experimentCrew member went two weeks without showeringSubstituted chemical cleaning products with minimal water use for actual showersResults extremely positive – crewmember not evicted

A few words on working hard…

Clearly, effort is requiredWe never sleep and rarely waste time eating

Work in many domains is usefulNo space system was ever designed and operated by one personEven subsystems require varied knowledgeSample fields: human-software interaction, life support systems (chemistry, biology, ecology), structures, public relations (necessary for funding)

Takeaway: one needn’t be a rocket scientist to do rocket science

But detailed knowledge of something and a good work ethic are required

A few words on reaching out…

1/5 of the population of the world watched the live transmission of the first Apollo moonwalkMars Society membership = 10,000 +AIAA membership = 31,000 +Number of aerospace engineers in US = 90,000

Takeaway: there’s a lot of people willing to join inWays to reach out: blogs, clubs, conferences

A few words on inspiration…

Range: 15.67 miles

My house

Pad 39A

Questions?

Lunar Outposts w/ In-Situ Assembly

Source: NASA. Space 2007 Conference.

Source: NASA. 3rd

Exploration Conference.

Source: NASA. 3rd

Exploration Conference.

λ Difficulties with in-situ offloading and assembly:ν Added operational risk

for complex operations foroffloading and assembly

ν Added development cost for assembly systems

ν Added development riskfor low TRL elements that are hard to test on Earth

ν Successful offloading and assembly is on the critical path to re-supply, lab access

λ Question is: what is the capability of architectures without in-situ assembly?

Key Existing Element: Small Pressurized RoversSmall Pressurized Rovers (SPRs) are used for extended-range exploration from the lunar outpostKey Characteristics

Piloted by 2 crew500 kg of cargo5-10 km/hr average driving speed

Allows for “shirt-sleeve transits”

Source: NASA. 3rd Exploration Conference

Source: NASA. Space 2007 Conference

Crew Time Requirements for Transits

There are two major types of transits:Habitat-laboratory transit (“office commute”)○ Beginning with the third crew on the lunar surfaceLogistical re-supply transit (“grocery shopping”)○ Transit from habitat to PLM and back○ Only required for the 180-day duration missions

Crew-time assumptions:4 crew members1442 cumulative surfacedays in campaign○ Based on NASA’s current plansProductive time○ 8 hours a day○ 6 days a week Source: NASA. 3rd Exploration Conference

Crew Time and Mass TradeSummary

Approximately 5% of productive crew-time is lost from the transits.○ Equivalent to approximately 72 surface days with four crew

To offset time lost, extra consumables could be delivered to the lunar surface

Approximately 1.5 mt of logistics would be required.Delivered on fourth or eight flight in place of ATHLETENet mass savings is still over 3 mt (~150 surface days)

Habitat-Laboratory Transit

Activity description Time required [hr]Enter rover from hab 0.25

Transit to lab 0.4Dock to lab & enter 0.25Enter rover from lab 0.25

Transit to hab 0.4Dock to hab & enter 0.25

Round trip lab transit 1.8

Crew transits to the laboratory in teamsof 2 astronautsEach team visits the laboratory once a weekFindings:

Time required for office commute is 3.6% of total productive time1426 crew-hours total over campaign

Logistical Re-supply Transit

Activity description Time required [hr]Enter rover 0.25

Transit to PLM 0.4Dock to PLM, load supplies, &

undock 2

Transit to hab 0.4Dock to hab and unload supplies 2

Logistic Resupply Trip 5.05

Two crew use one SPR to transit to the PLMLoads SPR with 500 kg of logistics (~5 CTBEs)One trip is required every 22.5 daysFindings:

Time required for transit is only 1.4% of total productive time566 crew-hours total

Element DesignTo ensure feasibility of the non-connected architecture, the design of the major elements were analyzedEach major element wasrequired to fit on a cargoAltair Lander

(i.e., less than 16 mt)The design effort focusedon the subsystems mostimpacted by the architecture change

ECLSSCrew SystemsStructures & Layout

Other subsystems were sized parametrically

Source: NASA. 3rd

Exploration Conference

Subsystem Design

Power & ThermalParametrically sized based on NASA’s First Lunar Outpost○ Power System: 20 W/kg○ Thermal System: 11 W/kg

Avionics & Communications

Sized for one International Standard Payload Rack per pressurized module

Sour

ce:

http

://en

.wik

iped

ia.o

rg/w

iki/I

nter

natio

nal

_Sta

ndar

d_Pa

yloa

d_R

ack

Source: NASA. First Lunar Outpost

Habitat Crew Systems & Element Layout

Crew Systems sized based on two productive days & seven nights a week per crew member

Food PrepHygieneSleeping

ConsumablesAssumed to be delivered separately

Layout2-floor design with loft and trunk

Overall mass15 mtIncludes 1 mt of “science”

Laboratory Crew Systems & Layout

LaboratoryScience equipmentMedical equipmentToilet

Consumables Assumed to be delivered separately

Layout

Single-floor version of the habitatCommon structures

Overall mass14.5 mtIncludes 2 mt of “science”

Pressurized Logistics Module

Structure made common with laboratory to reduce development costs

Usable volume40 m3

Cargo density250 kg/m3

Cargo delivered6.7 mt

Total mass12.5 mt

Summary & Conclusions

The non-connected architecture is preferred for lunar outposts over the currently planned connected architecture

SPRs used for transiting cargo and crew in a shirt-sleeve environment

The mass savings can be used to deliver additional consumables to offset the required crew-time losses

5% of productive crew time over the entire campaign

Major elements can be designed to optimize their shape and layout

Split ECLSS architecture required

From a program-level assessment, the non-connected architecture can provide similar capabilities with reduced cost and risk

Split ECLSS Architecture

HabLab

Sabatier HSWPA

Waste H2O

PumpN2

Solid waste

VCDOGA

4BMSCHX

TCC

N2

Pump

CO2

H2O

H2OO2

CO2

H2O

4BMSCHX

TCC

Pump

Solid wasteH2

HabitatWater Regeneration

LaboratoryCO2 Reduction

SPRs used to transit consumables between habitat and laboratory

During routine laboratory visits

ECLSS TransitsItems are shipped in tanks approximately once a monthTo laboratory

Carbon dioxide (for reduction)Water (for drinking & electrolysis)

To habitatOxygen (for breathing)Waste water (for processing)

Mass [kg]

Volume [m3]

Direction

CO2 tank 167 0.018- Hab to Lab

O2 tank 141 0.015 - Lab to Hab

Drinking H2O tank

82 0.082 - Hab to Lab

Waste H2O tank

82 0.082- Lab to Hab

Regen H2O tank

79 0.079

- Lab to Hab- Hab to Lab

Program-Level MetricsProgram-level metric Impact of moving from an architecture with in-situ assembly to a

non-connected architecturePerformance

Cumulative lunar surface duration [d]Same

Duration (1442 days) or morePerformance

Human surface exploration radius [km]Same

~450 kmPerformance

In-situ science capabilitySame

Laboratory module is available in both casesPerformance

Mars preparation relevanceSame

Surface duration, mobility, & science capabilities are unaffected

CostOperations

Approximately equalMore SPR driving & docking operations

No offloading, transportation, & assembly of major elements

CostTotal Life-cycle

Reduced by approximately $ 1 bn(based on NASA-JSC Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Cost Model)Elimination of assembly infrastructure development & prod.

Program schedule Life-cycle cost savings translate into somewhat accelerated development and utilization schedule

RiskDevelopment

Reduced TRL4 / 5 technologies is no longer required for program success

RiskOperational

ReducedNo high-risk offloading, translation and assembly maneuvers of

high-value elements required

Habitat – Subsystem Breakdown

Subsystem Mass [kg] Press. Volume [m3] Power [W] Heat Gen. [W]

Structures 6390 1 0 0

ECLSS 845 2.8 1721 1721

Crew Systems 622 9.8 5540 5540

Avionics 552 1.5 2000 2000

Comm 252 0.5 1000 1000

Thermal 1218 1 500 500

Power 670 1 638 638

Science 1000 5 2000 2000

TOTALS 11549 23 13399 13399

With 30% Design Margin 15014 29 17419 17419

Laboratory – Subsystem Breakdown

Subsystem Mass [kg] Press Vol [m3] Power [W] Heat Gen [W]

Structures 5282 1 0 0

ECLSS 539 2.2 1500 1500

Crew Systems 545 5.8 1545 1545

Avionics 552 1.5 2000 2000

Comm 252 0.5 1000 1000

Thermal 1197 1 500 500

Power 659 1 627 627

Science 2000 5 6000 6000

TOTALS 11026 18 13172 13172

With 30% Design Margin 14334 23 17124 17124

PLM – Subsystem Breakdown

Subsystem Mass [kg] Press Vol [m3] Power [W] Heat Gen [W]

Structures 2992 1 0 0

ECLSS 200 1 500 500

Crew Systems 0 0 0 0

Avionics 552 1.5 500 500

Comm 252 0.5 1000 1000

Thermal 239 1 500 500

Power 131 1 125 125

Science 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 4366 6 2625 2625

With 30% Design Margin 5675 8 3413 3413

Habitat

Lab / PLM

Cost Estimation

Assumption Development Cost[$ Mn]

Production Cost[$ Mn]

#[# of units]

Life-cycle cost [$ Mn]

Un-mannedvehicle 761 213 2 973

Mannedvehicle 1131 137 2 1268

Based on JSC Spacecraft / Vehicle Cost Model Life-cycle cost of developing ATHLETE mobility systems is ~$1 billion.

Estimate of Daily Logistics Requirements